Timely questions about Colombia, free trade

By Marifeli Pérez-Stable
The Miami Herald, November 7, 2008

''It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once,'' said candidate Barack Obama in late September amid the financial meltdown. And so it will be for President Obama after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009.

Though Latin America won't be anywhere near the top of his agenda, I hope that Obama stays true to his words. When he does look south, he should bring the same visionary breadth that resulted in his extraordinary victory. Just as it wouldn't have worked to blunt the red-blue edges of the electoral map, a bit-by-bit approach won't do for Latin America either.

Cuba and Colombia will offer our new president opportunities he must grab.

Cuba, oddly enough, is easier. Obama has already said he'd end restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances. Doing so early on will add to the goodwill he already enjoys in the region. At home, Cuba is a bipartisan issue, that is, neither party wholly supports or opposes current policy. Many Republicans will applaud Obama's easing of the restrictions that have placed such a burden on Cuban families.

Since the late 1990s, U.S.-Colombian relations have stood on a strong bipartisan consensus. Democrats and Republicans agreed that bolstering Colombia's ability to curb drug trafficking and modernize its military served the U.S. national interest. When the Democrats became the majority party in Congress, cracks in the consensus became apparent.

Democrats -- Obama first and foremost -- still support Plan Colombia for all the right reasons but are more insistent on protecting human rights than the Bush administration has been. Ironically, as Colombia's security situation improved under Alvaro Uribe, domestic and international scrutiny of human rights increased.

In 2007, the State Department certified Colombia's progress on human rights, which, of course, was and is real. Congressional Democrats, nonetheless, played hardball for changes in Plan Colombia, and the administration blinked. The total aid package was cut 10 percent and its composition changed. Whereas funds had split 75-25 between military and social expenditures, now the ratio is 55-45.

The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is another matter altogether. No doubt, sentiment against free trade is on the ascendance in the United States. Human rights -- in general but in particular regarding trade unionists -- and the fact that so few perpetrators are brought to justice stand in the way of the Colombia FTA's approval. At the same time, Obama has emphasized his support of the U.S.-Peru FTA and implied that progress on Colombia's could be made along the same lines.

Unfortunately, Washington and Bogotá both mishandled the FTA after the Democrats won control of Congress. Last April, Bush sent the agreement for fast-track approval, that is, up or down within 90 days. The Democrats reacted furiously against the president's presumptuousness. Hadn't he noticed that voters had just given the Republicans a drubbing? In any case, the 2006 election probably doomed the FTA's immediate chances, but a little recognition of the new political climate might have improved its medium-term prospects.

For his part, Uribe sailed through the sea of U.S. politics as if the Democrats mattered little. After 2006, he was ill-equipped -- by his closeness to Bush and the Republicans as well as his peremptory temperament -- to brook the Democrats' questioning. Now Colombia will face a Democratic president who may be a silver lining if Uribe learns to weather the new waves in Washington.

Colombia's domestic situation has taken complicated turns. The links between Uribe supporters and the paramilitaries are being exposed daily. Though thousands of paramilitaries have been demobilized, new groups are emerging. The left-wing FARC guerrillas may be regrouping after multiple hits in 2008. Colombia's top general just resigned in a scandal over civilian killings.

Three questions for Obama:

• Does Colombia represent a fundamental relationship for the United States?

• Would the FTA benefit the United States?

• Would Colombia's domestic problems be improved by derailing the FTA?

If the first two are answered yes and the third no, then Obama should move the agreement forward with congressional Democrats. He surely would get Republican support, which would have the salutary effect of reasserting a bipartisan U.S. policy toward Colombia.